The previous thread can be found here.Please post current anything about the ugliest royal jewels around. While doing so, please remember to follow the TRF posting guidelines and the copyright rules TRF Posting Rules & Guidelines :

In order to legally post copyrighted material, you must obtain written permission from the copyright owner.

No more than 20% of the text of an article can be posted, along with a link to the original article.

It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles.

Hotlinking of content from other websites is not permitted.

We expect our members to treat each other with respect.

iowabelle

09-21-2007 02:41 PM

Would you really wear peacock plumes, Thomas Parkman? Where I grew up (in the Deep South), peacock feathers are strictly forbidden indoors because they represent the Evil Eye. Now, I don't really believe in the Evil Eye, but why tempt fate?

But I agree, Princess Astrid's aigrette/tiara would like better if it were grander.

Thomas Parkman

09-21-2007 04:21 PM

Which is precisely the reason, dear Iowabell, that I would wear them. My whole life has been nothing if not a temptation of fate. Besides what feathers would you wear with Princess Astrid's aigrette. Ostrich feathers seemed to be de rigeur, at least at Buckingham Palace. In the Bible there is an interesting tiara with a place for the feathers in art nouveau style or some such and it had a small statue of some Greek god or other nude and the good lady insisted that they cover the poor thing up, which between the feathers and the fig leaf must have made the contraption a sight for sore eyes indeed.

I still want to see Queen Sonja in that 92 carat sapphire aigrette with some kind of feathers (Amazonian parrot feathers perhaps) rising out of it. Given the burn the monastics and lay waste to the coasts of Ireland tiara of hers anything goes.

As for starting a new thread, waaaaangh, it seems that we are the victims of our own toxic success. Nothing gets you to the top, and in this case, into the archives like fire, brimstone, atrocious and expensive bad taste and vinegar. Cheers.

jcbcode99

10-03-2007 10:54 PM

Well, we have a new piece to add to the "worst royal jewels" thread. The engagement ring that Prince Joachim has given to his fiance, Marie. The ring is on a filligree type of band, with a large oval diamond in the middle, and an oval ruby on one side and an oval sapphire on the other. Now, the stones are lovely and themselves impressive--but putting the three together on that band--well, he could have done much better. I think it looks very cumbersome. http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/293...0103074pp2.jpg

Boris

10-04-2007 04:42 AM

I couldn't agree more, jcbcode99. The gold band's filigree design isn't executed very well which makes it look as if it was an empty setting for stones having fallen out... and although it's always hard to tell on pics how authentic colors are, even on such a great close-up, neither the ruby nor the sapphire seem to have the most desirable shade.
Of course it's all a matter of personal taste, but this ring obviously doesn't even fit right, shifting to the side. Cumbersome indeed.

daisygoogles

10-04-2007 09:13 AM

It looks more like a "mother's ring"..You know, the rings that have the birthstone of each of the children on a band...Just like this..LOL
Engagemnt rings should really just stick to simple Large(lol) stone with maybe a bagette on either side of something like that

jcbcode99

10-04-2007 12:31 PM

It really does look like a mother's ring! Engagement rings should be simple, understated, and easy to wear for a lifetime. This thing is just ridiculous. Honoring her heritage? I mean, don't get me wrong, I live in the US, I'm proud to be an American, but there was no way that I wanted a red, white, and blue engagement ring. NO THANK YOU! To be honest, even though her ring was stunning, I always wondered why Charles and Andrew didn't follow their father's three carat example and get diamonds for Diana and Sarah? At least Edward got it right, and Charles gave Camilla a stunner. But, that sapphire of Diana's was beautiful. Never really liked Fergie's ring, though. Rubies don't go with everything. You need versitility in an ring worn daily.

LadyK

10-04-2007 06:48 PM

I had an evil thought last night :hmm: when I first saw Marie's ring- imagine that, with the Thurn und Taxis Taxicab/streetlight necklace (see part one of this thread for that conversation) and Margrethe's golden poppies (Mary finally has someone to pass them off to!). Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. (very evil laugh) :lol:

Should I do it? I don't want to kill Thomas. But it would be pretty funny...:biggrin:

Thomas Parkman

10-04-2007 08:20 PM

Oh, come on, Lady K, Thomas is not the frail, fragil, sensitive, delicate, swooning chocoholic you would like to think he is. Choco yes, swooning no, although I do confess to drooling uncontrollably. Others here have had the basic honesty to 'fess up too.

So You must put in the Earth Mother 1960s space odyssey earintgs of good MII, the hilarious monstrous valuable German rock chocker of Ms. Prinzess T und T, the Wurtemburg State Fair Halloween tiara with MIIs poppies scattered about and then on one hand the Dodi disaster of eteranal love diamonds are a girls best friend ring and on the other this patriotic waste of wondrous gemstones monstrosity.

The only question is is there any royal alive anywhere to whom you could possibly do this to, apart of course from Albert II of Monaco??? Candidates anyone??? Cheers.

jcbcode99

10-04-2007 11:55 PM

Thomas you are awful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was laughing so hard during the reading of your post that I lost my place twice! Lady K--do your worst! I cannot wait to see what delightful concoction you present for us, the Lovers of the Worst Jewels thread!

Lady K -- perhaps you could have that "lovely" statue of Diana and Dodi where they are releasing the bird (so classy) in the background of your picture? Such a, ahem, piece of art should be seen often (espcially on this thread!)

iowabelle

10-05-2007 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisygoogles
(Post 675212)

It looks more like a "mother's ring"..You know, the rings that have the birthstone of each of the children on a band...Just like this..LOL
Engagemnt rings should really just stick to simple Large(lol) stone with maybe a bagette on either side of something like that

I think Andrew gave it to Sarah to go with her hair. He said he loved her red hair. I liked it -- although I adored Diana's sapphire. I had a ring like Diana's and I loved it (well, a glass sapphire anyway)!

Bosana

10-05-2007 11:17 PM

Had the French flag a green colour as well -- we would have had the first official tutti fruitti engagement ring! :biggrin:

Thomas Parkman

10-07-2007 09:03 PM

May I humbly suggest, dear members, that in trying to create the tackiest ring in the world we take Marie's Allons Enfants de la Patrie Ring and add on the top toward the wrista large green emerald for all the former French Colonies in AFrica and the French territories in the Pacific and add on the bottom a large papadesca sapphire in orange pink for the colour George Bush and the State Department used to turn when dealing with Jacques Chirac.

A Papadesca (spelling Warren?????) sapphire is a rare pink sapphire with overtones of orange in it. It is quite bright, almost gaudy, rare and very, very expensive. Cheers.

Cheers.

Elspeth

10-07-2007 10:27 PM

Having coloured stones in engagment rings is much more of a European tradition and a lot less unusual in the USA. I agree that her ring was too fussy with all the colours and that ornate band, and sapphire and ruby together is an unusual combination, but the use of colours in an engagement ring isn't that out of the ordinary in Europe.

Mind you, I think a ruby that size should have been given a bit more scope to stand out. Course, as the proud owner of a ruby and diamond engagement ring - which isn't at all a problem wearing every day - I must admit to a certain amount of prejudice.

Elspeth

10-07-2007 10:29 PM

Thomas, I think you mean "padparadscha." Rare and valuable it may be, but give me a pink topaz any day. I think that pinky-orange colour is ghastly.

Warren

10-08-2007 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Parkman
(Post 676785)

A Papadesca (spelling Warren?????) sapphire is a rare pink sapphire with overtones of orange in it. It is quite bright, almost gaudy, rare and very, very expensive.

Here's a link to a page discussing pink/orange sapphires (with a pic), and a quote:

The most valuable other fancy sapphire is an orange-pink or pinkish-orange variety called 'padparadja' after the lotus blossom.

Padparadja sapphires are very rare, and the exact definition has always been a matter of debate: different dealers and laboratories around the world disagree on the exact colour denoted by this term. Some dealers even argue that the term should not be limited to the pastel shades of Sri Lankan sapphires, but also include the more fiery shades of reddish-orange from the Umba Valley in Tanzania.

Padparadja sapphires sell at a premium, their prices nearing those obtained for fine blue sapphires. Although the exact description of these rare gemstones is debatable, their beauty, with its delicate blended shades the colour of fresh salmon and sunsets, is not.

Elspeth

10-08-2007 03:35 AM

Quote:

Although the exact description of these rare gemstones is debatable, their beauty, with its delicate blended shades the colour of fresh salmon and sunsets, is not.

Yes, the brilliant ruby wins this contest with the fancy sapphire hands-down. :smile:

jcbcode99

10-08-2007 10:41 AM

Totally--no competition.

I love Rubies, always have, always, I also love emeralds (would kill for Wallis Simpson's engagement ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), and I love sapphires--well, I love all stones, but this ring is really just too busy. I agree-that ruby should have had top billing with some diamonds on the sides or something. Three stones is a nice combination, but it looks so much nicer if it is a central stone with two like stones on either side.